The use of assisted reproductive treatment (ART) to conceive a child provides the opportunity for the state and/or medical practitioners to play a role in deciding who should or should not become a parent. This article explores the primary criteria used to ‘screen’ people wishing to use ART and to exclude them from treatment in some circumstances. It argues that idiosyncratic judgment or general legal presumptions against treatment are not satisfactory, as they are unlikely to predict whether the best interests of a child born as a result of ART will be compromised. Rather, such judgements may serve to be discriminatory, and are often misinformed. The author suggests that the law and society should rather serve to support children and parents in need, and to protect existing children from actual suffering or ‘unacceptable risks’ of harm.
|Number of pages||15|
|Journal||Family law review|
|Publication status||Published - 2012|
- assisted reproduction
- donor conception